On Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a judicial investigation into the tragic Pahalgam terror attack that occurred on April 22, 2025. The attack claimed multiple lives, sparking nationwide grief and calls for accountability.
The PIL called for the formation of a judicial commission for the Pahalgam Terror Attack headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the incident. However, the court strongly objected to the petition, questioning both its timing and intent.
Justice Surya Kant, presiding over the bench with Justice N.K. Singh, firmly stated:
“This is not the time. This is the crucial hour when every citizen of the country has united to fight terrorism. Don’t make any prayer which can demoralise our forces. This is not acceptable to us.”
Right from the outset, Justice Kant reminded the petitioners’ counsel of their responsibility to the nation.
“Be responsible before filing such a PIL. You also have a duty towards the country,” he said. “The way you are trying, it is as if you are trying to demoralise the forces during this hour of crisis.”
The counsel responded that they respected the government’s actions and merely had one submission. But the bench pushed back:
“Since when have retired High Court and Supreme Court judges become experts in investigations? We (judges) are here to decide disputes, not conduct probes.”
Even after the counsel attempted to withdraw some parts of the petition, Justice Kant expressed clear displeasure, emphasizing that the matter was already placed in the public domain through the plea.
The bench criticized the wide scope of the PIL’s demands, which included:
- Appointing a former SC judge to investigate the attack,
- Directing the government to form an action plan,
- Issuing interim compensation,
- Involving the Press Council of India,
- Providing safeguards for students from Jammu and Kashmir studying outside the region.
“This is not the time,” Justice Kant repeated, stressing the sensitivity of the issue of the Pahalgam Terror Attack.
“You are forcing us to read all these prayers in open court… Look at the nature of the prayers you’ve made.”
When the counsel requested the appointment of an amicus curiae for student safety, the bench dismissed the suggestion.
“Why should we appoint an amicus?” asked Justice Kant, urging the counsel to withdraw the petition entirely instead of seeking judicial orders.
Justice Singh added that petitioners could approach the High Court for concerns unrelated to national security, though Solicitor General Tushar Mehta advised against even that, reiterating the seriousness of the situation of the Pahalgam Terror Attack.
Takeaway:
The Supreme Court firmly stood by its stance to protect the morale of India’s armed forces, underscoring that the judiciary’s role is to resolve disputes, not conduct investigations, especially during sensitive moments of national crisis.
